NCLT ad­mits in­sol­vency plea against Parsv­nath arm

The Times of India (New Delhi edition) - - TIMES CITY - & AGEN­CIES

New Delhi: The Na­tional Com­pany Law Tri­bunal has given its ap­proval to start in­sol­vency pro­ceed­ings against a sub­sidiary of realty firm Parsv­nath De­vel­op­ers. It ad­mit­ted a pe­ti­tion filed by three home­buy­ers against the sub­sidiary firm — Parsv­nath Land­mark De­vel­op­ers — for “in­or­di­nate de­lay” in the de­vel­op­ment of a project in Delhi and non-re­fund of their pay­ment.

The tri­bunal ap­pointed Yash Jeet Bas­rar as an in­terim res­o­lu­tion pro­fes­sional to run the cor­po­rate in­sol­vency res­o­lu­tion process. A two-mem­ber bench of NCLT di­rected that “in case there is any vi­o­la­tion com­mit­ted by the ex-man­age­ment or any tainted/il­le­gal trans­ac­tion by ex-di­rec­tors or any­one else, the in­terim res­o­lu­tion pro­fes­sional/res­o­lu­tion pro­fes­sional would be at lib­erty to make ap­pro­pri­ate ap­pli­ca­tion” be­fore it.

The tri­bunal or­der came on a pe­ti­tion filed by Alka Agar­wal and two oth­ers, who had booked flat at La Trop­i­cana project of Parsv­nath Land­mark De­vel­op­ers at Khy­ber Pass in Delhi for Rs 10.93 crore.

Ac­cord­ing to the buyer agree­ment ex­e­cuted be­tween the par­ties on Oc­to­ber 1, 2009, Parsv­nath Land­mark De­vel­op­ers was to hand over the pos­ses­sion within 36 months from the date of com­mence­ment of con­struc­tion with a grace pe­riod of six months. How­ever, even after more than nine years, con­struc­tion of the flat has not been com­menced.

The coun­sel for Parsv­nath Land­mark De­vel­op­ers did not par­tic­i­pate in the hear­ing.

How­ever, in a writ­ten sub­mis­sion filed by its au­tho­rised rep­re­sen­ta­tive, it said the ap­pli­ca­tion was not main­tain­able and de­lay was on ac­count of var­i­ous clear­ances and that the mat­ter of is­sue of own­er­ship of the land was still pend­ing be­fore the Delhi high court. It added that in the buyer agree­ment, it was agreed that the con­struc­tion of the flat would likely to be com­pleted within 36 month of com­mence­ment of con­struc­tion on re­ceipt of sanc­tion of build­ing plans and all other req­ui­site ap­provals for con­struc­tion. It also con­ceded that the buy­ers were not fi­nan­cial cred­i­tors.

Re­ject­ing the com­pany's sub­mis­sion, NCLT said, “The amount has been raised from the pe­ti­tion­ers/al­lot­tees un­der a real es­tate project. In such a sit­u­a­tion, not only the debt has a com­mer­cial ef­fect of bor­row­ings and come within the scope of ‘fi­nan­cial debt’, but also the pe­ti­tion­ers are cov­ered by the def­i­ni­tion of ex­pres­sion ‘fi­nan­cial cred­i­tor’.

Ab­hishek Ku­mar, pres­i­dent, Ne­fowa, said: “More and more buy­ers are now fil­ing pe­ti­tions with NCLT be­cause many now just want a re­fund of their in­vest­ments with a ba­sic in­ter­est rate. While many buy­ers had over the past few months been go­ing to the Real Es­tate Reg­u­la­tory Au­thor­ity, the buy­ers who have been seek­ing re­fund has been ap­proach­ing NCLT be­cause Rera’s ef­forts are di­rected more to­wards fa­cil­i­tat­ing com­ple­tion of the projects.”

(With in­puts from Sharmila


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.